A Student Adcom's Thoughts on MCAT Scores

[QofQuimica]

I got a PM asking me about how adcoms use MCAT scores, so I figured I'd post my answer here since some of the rest of you might also want to read it. Before I start, please read this post with the caveat that I am one single adcom at one single medical school. Other medical schools do things differently, and even at my school, other adcoms have different opinions than I do. Also, in the interest of disclosure, this is now my fourth year of being a student adcom, and I have read and voted on several hundred apps. Even so, you should feel free to take my thoughts for what you think they're worth. On that note, let's begin.

My gentle PM writer asked how much MCAT scores really matter to the adcom. My answer to this would be that if your score is too low, it matters a lot. What is too low? I would define the cut point as being around 27-28. Below a 27, you are much more likely to be screened out for your score. On the other hand, if you have a 30 or better, your MCAT score is not likely to be an issue. If you have a 35 or better, you are among the most elite applicants in terms of MCAT scores. Basically, if you don't get into medical school with a 35+ MCAT, it's you, not us.

Related question: how impressed is the adcom with a 40+ MCAT? This varies tremendously. Personally, it doesn't affect my evaluation at all if person A has a 35 and person B has a 40. Once you get to the high 30s, you reach a point where doing better on the MCAT gives diminishing returns IMO. However, there are other members of my school's adcom who are more stats-oriented and like seeing applicants with very high scores.

Next question: is it true that multiple retakes of the MCAT will hurt you? My answer to this would be that it depends. My school takes all MCAT scores into consideration, not just the most recent score. If you retake and improve significantly (which I would define as a change of 3+ points), it's possible that you will be asked about your improvement during an interview, but yes, that will help you, especially if your retake score is 30+. If you retake and go down, yes, that will work to your disadvantage, especially if it's a significant drop. If you retake and score the same (or within 1-2 points), it depends. Personally, I do tend to look at this as being an unwise decision by the applicant, especially if the first score was already 30+. However, it's not an automatic dealbreaker. I think my position is probably pretty middle-of-the-road when it comes to this--some adcoms care more, and others don't care.

Next question: what do we think about a person with a high MCAT and a low GPA? Again, it depends on why the GPA is low. If the person is a nontrad with poor grades from several years ago and they have since done well in a post bac (which I define as a 3.8+ GPA), then the overall GPA won't matter to me as much even if it's still fairly low compared to our average. If the student is a trad who has shown a trend of improvement during college (i.e., a bad freshman year and then a strong sophomore and especially junior year), again, that will make the overall GPA matter less to me. But if the grades are consistently low, and especially if the grades have gone down over time as the student started taking harder science courses, that will be a red flag to me. Med school science classes tend to be as rigorous if not more rigorous than college classes, so I don't want to see people's grades going down when the going gets tough, even if their MCAT score is high.

Last question: do MCAT scores really predict board scores? They are correlated, but it's not an extremely strong correlation. The USMLE is a different kind of test than the MCAT is, much more information based. The people who do the best on Step 1 are people who work hard during their preclinical years and study hard for the test.

Hope this helps, and best of luck to you all.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Etyan]

This is a great thread. Thanks, Q!

 

[rodmichael82]

Q marry me.

 

[aspiring20]

There may be some difference between a 35 and a 37-38 in some adcoms' minds, but I wouldn't say it's a huge difference. Once you reach around a 35 on the MCAT, other aspects of your app start mattering a lot more. Top tier schools could easily fill their entire classes with people who have 3.8+ GPAs and 38+ MCAT scores, but they don't. For as much additional benefit as you'd get, I'd argue that you're much better off spending that month working on other aspects of your app, including shoring up ECs. It's very important to make your overall app as strong as possible, not just be strong in one or two areas. The way to make your overall app stronger is to take your weakest area, and work on strengthening that.

When I say "areas," I'm talking about all of the following: grades, MCAT, ECs, essays, LORs, and interviewing skills. Your grades and MCAT score are both stellar. So work on having equally stellar ECs, writing great essays, getting strong LORs, and mock-interviewing.



See above. I wouldn't recommend that either of you re-take.


Your GPA is a bit lower than our average and your MCAT is about at the average. So yes, I'd say those stats would be reasonable, assuming the rest of your app is strong.

(I'm saying "our" with the caveat that I graduated a couple of years ago and don't sit on the adcom any more.)

thanks!

and if a 35 MCAT is at the average at your school, then your school must be up there.

also, i'll send you a PM shortly to ask another question. i would really appreciate your input. thanks again!

 

[QofQuimica]

Q marry me.

Only if you drop out of med school and get a real job.

thanks!

and if a 35 MCAT is at the average at your school, then your school must be up there.

also, i'll send you a PM shortly to ask another question. i would really appreciate your input. thanks again!

Yes, I think I already said somewhere up thread that I went to one of the more research-oriented med schools.

 

[sshung]

Can a 35 MCAT compensate for a 3.3 gpa/sgpa in your school?

Also is it true that most medical schools give each applicant a score for his/her application and then give out interviews starting from the highest score?

 

[osprey099]

Q of Quimica,

How does your school take into consideration the rigor, not necessarily the USNWR ranking, of the undergraduate institution an applicant attended? So by rigor, I mean schools that are widely known to be hard, have grade deflation, cutthroat reputation, etc. How will a 3.6 from a school like this compare to a 3.8 from a state school that's a lot easier?

 

[rodmichael82]

Only if you drop out of med school and get a real job.

Ouch.

 

[Pathobio1]

Can you comment on the effect of publications coupled with average stats (3.6-3.7/30-32) on admissions to research heavy schools assuming there are no glaring weaknesses? Does it vary for trad and non-trad applicants?

 

[mbaumann1123]

Hi I have a question, I was a varsity gymnast for 4 years in college and my GPA is only 3.68. However during my senior year (last year) I dropped all classes except organic chem I and physics I after breaking my neck at gym practice. I had complications after surgery and ended dropping my second semester completely. Will I be judged for these semesters or for taking a year longer to finish college before I have a chance to explain the circumstances?

As far as the mcat, I took it in September but voided as I didn't feel prepared but will retake in January. My practice test was a 26 :/ I don't have a stellar application, one summer in a physician shadowing program, no published research, one volunteer trip to Dominican Republic to set up gym programs for underprivileged at risk kids, leadership committee 2 years, team captain 2 years, student coach for 1 year, and a couple other little things here and there. Would I need a super high mcat to balance out my lackluster application? I prioritized gymnastics in college, 2 practices per day 6 days per week including summers and I worked through college 20-30 hours per week. I'm kicking myself for not prioritizing clinical experience during college, I don't know what I was thinking. Am I in a position where a score under 30 or even low 30's would take med school completely off the table for me?

Thanks for this thread its been really helpful

 

[QofQuimica]

Can a 35 MCAT compensate for a 3.3 gpa/sgpa in your school?

No. What can compensate for a low GPA is a 3.8+ post bac or SMP. That being said, 3.3 isn't so awful that you'd be automatically screened out at most schools, either. Also see further up-thread where I discussed trends in grades.

Also is it true that most medical schools give each applicant a score for his/her application and then give out interviews starting from the highest score?

I can't speak to what most med schools do, but it's not that regimented at my school. There are basically three piles: immediate invite, immediate rejection, and pre-interview hold. Some of the people in the hold group get invited later as the adcom gets a better sense of what the applicant pool is looking like. But once you're in the invite group, you pretty much get invited on a rolling basis.

Q of Quimica,

How does your school take into consideration the rigor, not necessarily the USNWR ranking, of the undergraduate institution an applicant attended? So by rigor, I mean schools that are widely known to be hard, have grade deflation, cutthroat reputation, etc. How will a 3.6 from a school like this compare to a 3.8 from a state school that's a lot easier?

School selectivity does get considered to some degree. The Admissions Dean had this book we could use to look up how selective various schools are, even if we'd never heard of them. It rates the selectivity on things like SAT scores, percent of applicants accepted, and a whole bunch of other things I don't remember. So a high GPA from a highly selective school will be considered as more competitive than an equally high GPA from a community college that accepts anyone who applies. Between a 3.6 and a 3.8, tough to say. Most state schools are selective to some degree, and their honors programs in particular are highly selective. So someone who got a 3.8 from one of those programs would not be penalized for that.

I'd also gently point out that your question as worded is kind of insulting to those of us who attended state schools. Personally, I'd be biased against any applicant who tried to use their school's grading policy as an excuse for not performing as well in school as a State U applicant did.

Ouch.

Can you comment on the effect of publications coupled with average stats (3.6-3.7/30-32) on admissions to research heavy schools assuming there are no glaring weaknesses? Does it vary for trad and non-trad applicants?

It's not as simple as that, because not all research experiences are created equal. At my school, publications are a boon to your app but definitely not required. The adcom cares more about the quality of the research experience and how involved the student was in the research, as well as how well the student is able to discuss the research. So if I interviewed you, I'd want to hear you be able to explain the purpose of your work, what the hypothesis was, what results you found, and most importantly if you're going to be a researcher, what the next step would be. A person who is a first author is typically very involved in planning experiments and writing the manuscript. To me, that would be more impressive for a college-level researcher than would be simply being a grunt for the PI of a Science or Nature paper.

I don't know that there is really a different standard for trads versus nontrads. A nontrad like me who came in with a PhD is clearly going to have a lot more research experience, including publications, than a nontrad who switched careers and has only done a semester of research while in their post bac. So it wouldn't be very fair to compare our records just because we're both nontrads. On the other hand, an applicant with a PhD better have a darn good grasp on their research and be prepared to discuss it at a post-doc level if their interviewer is in the same field and can discuss their work on that level with them.

Hi I have a question, I was a varsity gymnast for 4 years in college and my GPA is only 3.68. However during my senior year (last year) I dropped all classes except organic chem I and physics I after breaking my neck at gym practice. I had complications after surgery and ended dropping my second semester completely. Will I be judged for these semesters or for taking a year longer to finish college before I have a chance to explain the circumstances?

I can't imagine anyone giving you a hard time for literally breaking your neck.

As far as the mcat, I took it in September but voided as I didn't feel prepared but will retake in January. My practice test was a 26 :/ I don't have a stellar application, one summer in a physician shadowing program, no published research, one volunteer trip to Dominican Republic to set up gym programs for underprivileged at risk kids, leadership committee 2 years, team captain 2 years, student coach for 1 year, and a couple other little things here and there. Would I need a super high mcat to balance out my lackluster application? I prioritized gymnastics in college, 2 practices per day 6 days per week including summers and I worked through college 20-30 hours per week. I'm kicking myself for not prioritizing clinical experience during college, I don't know what I was thinking. Am I in a position where a score under 30 or even low 30's would take med school completely off the table for me?

Thanks for this thread its been really helpful

Again, the way to compensate for weak areas of your app is not through retaking the MCAT (unless the MCAT itself is the weakness you're trying to improve). The way to compensate for weak ECs is to improve your ECs. So, ok, you didn't do a lot of clinical stuff in college. Start doing some now. I'd also point out that your ECs aren't as lackluster as you seem to think. Varsity gymnastics is a great EC. I don't know what kind of work you did, but that's a legitimate EC too. Having been in the position of a patient after your gym accident is definitely something that affects your views of health care. That's all fodder for your app, not just the physician shadowing. And personally, I'm not a fan of volunteer trips as ECs anyway. They're usually more trips than they are volunteering. If helping underprivileged kids is your thing, there are more than plenty of them needing help in your own home town. You could be a Big Brother/Sister, for example, or tutor at risk kids, or lots of other similar kinds of activities.

 

[osprey099]

School selectivity does get considered to some degree. The Admissions Dean had this book we could use to look up how selective various schools are, even if we'd never heard of them. It rates the selectivity on things like SAT scores, percent of applicants accepted, and a whole bunch of other things I don't remember. So a high GPA from a highly selective school will be considered as more competitive than an equally high GPA from a community college that accepts anyone who applies. Between a 3.6 and a 3.8, tough to say. Most state schools are selective to some degree, and their honors programs in particular are highly selective. So someone who got a 3.8 from one of those programs would not be penalized for that.

I'd also gently point out that your question as worded is kind of insulting to those of us who attended state schools. Personally, I'd be biased against any applicant who tried to use their school's grading policy as an excuse for not performing as well in school as a State U applicant did.

Thanks for responding Q of Quimica.

I didn't mean to insult anyone but I was just kind of wondering if I had made a mistake back when I decided which college to attend. I basically had two choices: 1) my state school (which is kind of selective, but it accepts a ton of people who had <2000 SATs, <3.6 GPAs, etc) or 2) a highly selective/USNWR ranked private school. I had a full scholarship to the honors program at my state school but I decided to go to my current private school instead because I felt like this would garner me an advantage, should I do well, when I apply to medical schools. I ended up getting a 3.6 here and although I'm doing quite well in my application cycle thus far, I can't help but think that if I had gone to my state school and gotten a 3.8+, which I know for a fact I would have been able to since a lot of my high school friends who I know don't study as much as me ended up getting 3.8s and 3.9s, maybe I would have had a chance to interview at some top 20 medical school programs. Although I have a lot of interview invitations right now, they are all at rank 30 or below medical school and I felt like I kind of screwed my chances at top schools due to a poor decision I made as an immature 17 year old..

 

[QofQuimica]

A couple of other questions I got by PM:

One person would like to know what changes the adcom's mind about sending an II to people later in the season if they didn't get one earlier? People who fall into this category are typically very good applicants who didn't quite make the top cut. The adcom wants to wait until they have a better sense of what the total applicant pool looks like before deciding whether to extend invites to them. Some of you may not have ever thought about it this way, but interview invites, like seats in the med school class, are in limited supply. In particular, faculty interviewers are a relatively limited resource. It's not physically possible for the school to interview every applicant who is qualified to attend med school there, and there is a pre-set number of interviews. The number of interviews that get conducted isn't exactly the same from year to year, but it's pretty darn close. So basically the adcom sends out more invites until they have conducted approximately the pre-set number of interviews, and then they stop for that year.

The same person also asks if it's true that II's will still go out to applicants at my school who were complete a long time ago, and the answer is yes, definitely. Happens every year.

And finally, if schools are trying to interview the best possible applicants first before Oct 15, why aren't most (if not all) of the applicants who interview first not accepted? That can happen for several reasons. One is that some people don't interview very well even though they looked great on paper. Even with a great app, some early interviewees get put on hold or even rejected post-interview at my school after blowing their interviews. Another big reason is that some schools don't do rolling admissions. They have one date in the spring where they fill their class, and so obviously no one can get accepted to those schools in the fall. Other schools kind of use the same de facto nonrolling admissions strategy by putting most applicants on post-interview hold and only outright accepting a few people in the fall. Many of the popular research-oriented med schools use one of these two "wait and see" approaches to accepting people, such that most applicants will not get accepted to those schools right away. It helps ensure that there are still plenty of seats available for stellar candidates who apply and interview later in the season.

 

[gettheleadout]

Thanks for responding Q of Quimica.

I didn't mean to insult anyone but I was just kind of wondering if I had made a mistake back when I decided which college to attend. I basically had two choices: 1) my state school (which is kind of selective, but it accepts a ton of people who had <2000 SATs, <3.6 GPAs, etc) or 2) a highly selective/USNWR ranked private school. I had a full scholarship to the honors program at my state school but I decided to go to my current private school instead because I felt like this would garner me an advantage, should I do well, when I apply to medical schools. I ended up getting a 3.6 here and although I'm doing quite well in my application cycle thus far, I can't help but think that if I had gone to my state school and gotten a 3.8+, which I know for a fact I would have been able to since a lot of my high school friends who I know don't study as much as me ended up getting 3.8s and 3.9s, maybe I would have had a chance to interview at some top 20 medical school programs. Although I have a lot of interview invitations right now, they are all at rank 30 or below medical school and I felt like I kind of screwed my chances at top schools due to a poor decision I made as an immature 17 year old..

Were you aware of your school's grade deflation when you applied?

 

[mbaumann1123]

No. What can compensate for a low GPA is a 3.8+ post bac or SMP. That being said, 3.3 isn't so awful that you'd be automatically screened out at most schools, either. Also see further up-thread where I discussed trends in grades.


I can't speak to what most med schools do, but it's not that regimented at my school. There are basically three piles: immediate invite, immediate rejection, and pre-interview hold. Some of the people in the hold group get invited later as the adcom gets a better sense of what the applicant pool is looking like. But once you're in the invite group, you pretty much get invited on a rolling basis.


School selectivity does get considered to some degree. The Admissions Dean had this book we could use to look up how selective various schools are, even if we'd never heard of them. It rates the selectivity on things like SAT scores, percent of applicants accepted, and a whole bunch of other things I don't remember. So a high GPA from a highly selective school will be considered as more competitive than an equally high GPA from a community college that accepts anyone who applies. Between a 3.6 and a 3.8, tough to say. Most state schools are selective to some degree, and their honors programs in particular are highly selective. So someone who got a 3.8 from one of those programs would not be penalized for that.

I'd also gently point out that your question as worded is kind of insulting to those of us who attended state schools. Personally, I'd be biased against any applicant who tried to use their school's grading policy as an excuse for not performing as well in school as a State U applicant did.





It's not as simple as that, because not all research experiences are created equal. At my school, publications are a boon to your app but definitely not required. The adcom cares more about the quality of the research experience and how involved the student was in the research, as well as how well the student is able to discuss the research. So if I interviewed you, I'd want to hear you be able to explain the purpose of your work, what the hypothesis was, what results you found, and most importantly if you're going to be a researcher, what the next step would be. A person who is a first author is typically very involved in planning experiments and writing the manuscript. To me, that would be more impressive for a college-level researcher than would be simply being a grunt for the PI of a Science or Nature paper.

I don't know that there is really a different standard for trads versus nontrads. A nontrad like me who came in with a PhD is clearly going to have a lot more research experience, including publications, than a nontrad who switched careers and has only done a semester of research while in their post bac. So it wouldn't be very fair to compare our records just because we're both nontrads. On the other hand, an applicant with a PhD better have a darn good grasp on their research and be prepared to discuss it at a post-doc level if their interviewer is in the same field and can discuss their work on that level with them.


I can't imagine anyone giving you a hard time for literally breaking your neck.


Again, the way to compensate for weak areas of your app is not through retaking the MCAT (unless the MCAT itself is the weakness you're trying to improve). The way to compensate for weak ECs is to improve your ECs. So, ok, you didn't do a lot of clinical stuff in college. Start doing some now. I'd also point out that your ECs aren't as lackluster as you seem to think. Varsity gymnastics is a great EC. I don't know what kind of work you did, but that's a legitimate EC too. Having been in the position of a patient after your gym accident is definitely something that affects your views of health care. That's all fodder for your app, not just the physician shadowing. And personally, I'm not a fan of volunteer trips as ECs anyway. They're usually more trips than they are volunteering. If helping underprivileged kids is your thing, there are more than plenty of them needing help in your own home town. You could be a Big Brother/Sister, for example, or tutor at risk kids, or lots of other similar kinds of activities.

Actually I did around 30 volunteer clinics per year for the past 5 years in the US setting gym programs up for kids in disadvantaged areas. I can list that instead of the overseas one. Funny you mentioned it, on NPR last week I heard that admissions committees were tired of hearing about the same mission trip/overseas volunteering every application cycle. Thanks for the advice

 

[osprey099]

Were you aware of your school's grade deflation when you applied?

Yes I was but as an immature 17 year old, I felt like if I could still get a 3.8+ gpa at a difficult school and that would be ideal for top medical schools and at the very least, I could get a 3.6 and still be competitive at most mid tier schools because of my undergrad. If I can go back in time, yes I would have chosen my state school option instead. However, I have definitely enjoyed my experiences and met many of my best friends at my current school and I'm also having tremendous success this cycle, although not at top 30 schools, so I'm happy where I am at right now.

 

[Dr Turkelton]

How would you view an applicant who had ~3.0 undergrad gpa, 4.0 SMP gpa and a 36 mcat? First two years of undergrad were horrible (2.8, 2) but then the last 2 years were a bit better (3.0 junior year, 3.7 senior year and 4.0 in 15 credits the summer after graduating taking physics and orgo).

 

[QofQuimica]

Actually I did around 30 volunteer clinics per year for the past 5 years in the US setting gym programs up for kids in disadvantaged areas. I can list that instead of the overseas one. Funny you mentioned it, on NPR last week I heard that admissions committees were tired of hearing about the same mission trip/overseas volunteering every application cycle. Thanks for the advice

That's a much better EC: very substantial and something I'm guessing you feel passionate about based on your background and time commitment. Definitely include it.

I wouldn't say I feel tired of hearing about mission trips. They just make me roll my eyes a little, because they're basically glorified vacations in most cases. Now if you did Peace Corps or otherwise spent months to years working overseas with a service group, that's a different story. But a week abroad where you spent half the time traveling around and basically vacationing? Don't even bother putting that on your list.

How would you view an applicant who had ~3.0 undergrad gpa, 4.0 SMP gpa and a 36 mcat? First two years of undergrad were horrible (2.8, 2) but then the last 2 years were a bit better (3.0 junior year, 3.7 senior year and 4.0 in 15 credits the summer after graduating taking physics and orgo).

See posts above where I discussed grade trends.